Regime Rotation 2004

The Democratic Party is urging the grassroots to ignore
the fact that all of the Presidential candidates (except Kucinich and
Sharpton) are pro-war. If being pro-war is not relevant, then we might
as well all vote for Bush. Of course, with voting
machines made by Republicans, we might be voting for Bush whether
we want to or not. It is amazing (but maybe not surprising) that the Democratic
Party is silent about electoral fraud (Georgia,
Alabama, Nebraska, etc. in 2002), preferring to attack leaders like Cynthia
McKinney.

The 2004 campaign will likely be between Kerry and Bush - blood brothers in the secret SKULL AND BONES society from Yale
University. The D's are meeting in Boston, Kerry is the wealthiest candidate,
he has good hair, he's a pro-war democrat masquerading as anti-war, and
he helped cover up the CIA's involvement in drug trafficking in the late
1980s (after Iran-Contra hearings). He's clearly the anointed one. His
foreign policy chair for his campaign is Rand Beers, who served on Bush's
National Security Council until 2003 (the passing of the torch from Skull
and Bones/Bush to Skull and Bones/Kerry?).

But Kerry wasn't doing well in late 2003, which is why
the D's (and R's) brought in General Clark, a Republican now pretending
to be a Democrat. He's waged a war based on phony evidence (Kosovo), is
tied to drug money laundering Jackson Stephens (see www.oilempire.us/clark.html ), supports the Army School of the Americas torture training center in
Georgia, and worse.

Dean, the liberal's hope, is a conservative
Democrat from old-money Long Island NY republicans. He did wonders to
Vermont as governor: freeways, environmental deregulation, corporate welfare,
introduction of Wal-Mart, police abuses, the list is a long one. He's
as much the "peace candidate" as LBJ was in 1964, since Dean
supports Bush's military budget, "Homeland Security," "special
forces," and has even blessed the doctrine of pre-emptive war (although
with tactical differences than Bush's approach). But despite all of these
retrograde views and a history that is completely different than the image
he paints on the campaign trail, he hasn't committed crimes on a national
or international scale of sufficient magnitude for the covert rulers of
the empire to permit him to become President. Kerry has that experience
from assisting to keep the CIA / cocaine scandal reasonably muted in the
aftermath of the Iran-Contra scandal, and his membership in Skull and
Bones no doubt reassures the secret, actual government that he is presidential
material.

Representative Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate calling for stopping the subsidy for fossil fuels
in favor of renewable energy, the Kyoto treaty (admittedly weak), a South
Africa style "Truth and Reconciliation" commission to investigate
911, cutting the military budget and investigating the trillions missing
from the Pentagon and other federal agencies. Sadly, most of the electorate
that agrees with Representative Kucinich's views has been reluctant to
support his candidacy (or is even aware that he is running).

The police state is likely to get stronger whether
George Bush steals the election or lets the Democrats win. General
Clark worked for one of the Total(itarian) Information Awareness contractors.
The real front-runner, Senator Kerry, is a blood brother with George W.
Bush in the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University (a cult
that has incredible influence in finance, politics and what's euphemistically
called "intelligence"). Governor Dean supports "Homeland
Security." Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The war on freedom,
but under new, kinder and gentler management.

Kerry said in the New Hampshire debate on January 22, 2004
that the US needed to increase the size of the military. The main difference
with Bush is that he wants the UN to bless the occupation so that Europe
will contribute troops since the world conquest plan is overextended.

Whether Bush steals the election or lets the Democrats
win depends much more on internecine fighting among the elite than how
many people vote or even organize -- if the Democrats continue
to be afraid to talk about the full extent of Bush's scandals:

- complicity in 9/11
- and the anthrax attacks on the Democrats
(to get the USAPATRIOT act passed)
- Governor Carnahan and Senator Wellstone plane crashes
- Marvin Bush's involvement in a security firm
that worked for airports used on 9/11 and the World Trade Center
- Bush's knowledge of Peak Oil and how the
US is planning to control the world oil supplies for the remainder of
the oil era
- torture, Guantanamo Bay concentration
camp, US death squads in Iraq, war crimes,
etc.
- the Homeland Security police state
- the looting of the economy (up to three trillion in federal spending
that cannot be properly accounted for)

It is fascinating to see how the Democratic Party - and
much of the liberal / left - has seized on the "WMD scandal"
to muster just enough outrage to bring down the Bush administration while
keeping intact the core functioning of the empire.

The Democratic party wing of the establishment is working to limit dissent
to ensure "regime rotation" instead of "regime change"
in November.

Regime Rotation consists of unseating Bush but replacing him with another
President who will continue the empire's global domination efforts, although
with more tact, better speeches and a few token distractions for domestic
and international opinion increasingly opposed to the Bush regime's outrages.

Regime Rotation exposes the war on Iraq as a deception, but not the September
11 "Reichstag Fire." Regime rotation recommends that 9/11 be
seen as a result of incompetence and / or lack of coordination by the
intelligence agencies (which only need more billions and less restrictions
to ensure it won't happen again), even though there is an enormous amount
of evidence that 9/11 was an "inside job."

Regime Rotation wants to keep the occupation of Iraq going. The
three main opposition candidates - Clark, Dean and Kerry - all support
keeping troops in the oil fields, although they state that the invasion
was a mistake. A Democratic victory in November would allow Bush and the
Project for a New American Century "neo-conservatives" to have
done the dirty work getting the oil wars going (and "homeland security"
to be installed for addressing domestic dissent as the economy continues
to unravel), and allow the "Good Cop" of a Democrat to continue
the war with less domestic opposition, UN blessing and European money
and soldiers. These oil wars are the United States's response to Peak
Oil, and will continue as long as the oil lasts (Cheney calls it the war
that will not end in our lifetime) or until the US is willing to undertake
a massive reduction of energy consumption and investment of resources
into a more locally based, renewable energy society.

Canceling
the Election?

In Summer 2004, Kerry / Edwards surged ahead in
the polls,
so the Bush regime threatened to "postpone" the elections

Published on Sunday, July 11, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-kerry11jul11,1,6632227,print.story?coll=la-news-a_section
Kerry to Reach Out to 'People on the Right'
Candidate's new strategy embraces conservatives. He seems unconcerned
about ruffling liberals.
by Matea Gold and Mark Z. Barabak

.... A poll by Newsweek magazine
released Saturday indicated Edwards had given Kerry
a boost nationwide. The survey, conducted Thursday and Friday, found the Kerry-Edwards ticket leading
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, 51% to 45%. A Newsweek
poll in mid-May had Kerry ahead by 1 percentage point, 46% to 45%.

Kerry is polling better than Bush, which is why the Doctor Strangeloves
in the Department of Homeland Security are floating the idea that a "terror"
attack before the election would force "postponement" of the
election. One aspect of the 9/11 "attack" is that it
forced the cancellation of the New York City primary that day, and as
a dry run for canceling/postponing the 2004 Presidential Election it worked
very well, since a normal election would not have been possible in New
York on 9/11/2001.

The "3/11" (March 11, 2004, which was 911 days after September
11) terror attack in Spain backfired, since the voters threw out the right
wing government and elected a government who is pulling Spain's troops
out of Iraq. A repeat of 9/11 in the United States might also backfire,
since a LOT of citizens realize that Bush needs an attack to stay in office.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a mixed film, since it carefully avoids
discussing the evidence that clarifies how the Bush regime deliberately
allowed 9/11 (if they didn't actually plan it themselves). However, the
sold-out theaters from coast to coast (and even in "conservative"
areas) are a positive sign that millions are hungry to learn deeper truths.

Those behind the throne planning the next 9/11 are probably
very concerned that a repeat might

(1) be seen as another "inside job,"
(2) be seen as merely a convenient opportunity presented for Bush to
suspend the election, or
(3) be seen as proof that Bush can't protect the country and that his
policies have made us all less safe.

Getting these ideas into the media coverage is probably the best
antidote to this threat to "postpone" the election - a tactic
that makes the infamous Florida "felon list" and the computerized
paper-less touch screen voting machines seem like minor irregularities.

What sequel do Cheney and Ridge have planned? Merely an intensified
"color" alert (red alert for Election
Day, but no terror attack)? Or actually have a terror attack just before
the election? (October Surprise?) Will the honest officers in the military
and intelligence agencies allow them to do this? Will the media
conglomerates ratify the coup? Will the 50 plus million who plan to
vote for Kerry stay passive and accept this outrageous disruption of the
election? Will they allow Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Ridge to terrorize
the country with this threat? If there really IS a terror attack planned
without any Bush regime complicity and the Bush regime is aware of this,
why don't they move to arrest the would-be perpetrators? In May, the Bush
regime claimed that the next terror attack was 90% complete in its preparation.
How do they know this? If they really have an informant in the terror
group, why not move to stop them from carrying out the crime? Is it all
a hoax to keep people in a state of permanent fear? Does the Bush administration
want the terror attack to succeed, but in a way most congenial for Karl
Rove's mad psychological warfare campaigns?

Does anyone anywhere know someone who voted for Gore or Nader who now
wants to vote for Bush? In contrast, there are a fair number of people
who voted for Bush who regret it now. Most of those who voted for Nader
and regret it want to vote for Kerry to defeat his cousin, George W. Bush
(although they don't know Kerry and Bush and Cheney are cousins). If Nader
hadn't been in the race in 2000, it is likely that the public would not
have known about the blatant vote fraud in Florida. In a way, the Florida
fraud was a gift, since Bush's gang had probably stolen the election long
before election day, but they got caught doing this, and the whole world
saw that Bush was not legitimate (which helped discredit him on Day 1).
The opening scene in "Fahrenheit 9/11" shows how the Democratic
controlled Senate resisted efforts by the Congressional Black Caucus to
have a debate on the legitimacy of the Florida Electors (January 6, 2001),
with VP Gore presiding as President of the Senate (ie. the tie-breaker
for a Senate divided 50-50 between the parties). Unfortunately, in 2004,
Nader is not addressing the deeper ways that the election is being tampered
with, and is not speaking directly to the overwhelming fears that much
of the country has about another term for Baby Bush. While it is critical
for Bush to leave the White House, preferably BEFORE November 2, Bush's
most important policies (oil wars and homeland security) will continue
under Kerry, but most of the people agitating for Bush's electoral defeat
will relax and "stand down" in their opposition to war and fascism
after election day, assuming that election day is allowed to happen.

Why would Bush/Cheney suddenly get bad press from the same media powers
that ratified their 2000 electoral coup and ignored evidence of the Bush
regime's complicity in 9/11?

Why isn't the most popular democrat (Dean) the
one who was picked by the Democratic Party? Last fall, Kerry's campaign
was in disarray, fundraising was down (Dean had raised more, and from
small donations), he had fired his campaign manager, and few thought that
his candidacy was going anywhere. But the Clintons brought in General
Clark to split the Dean vote, the media turned on Dean with a vengeance,
and a couple months later, Dean's campaign had imploded and Kerry was
suddenly the front runner.

Why is a Skull and Bones member with experience in covering up Bush
family crimes the "alternative" to Bush? Has Kerry made a deal
not to prosecute all of the Bush crimes in order to become President,
similar to his muzzling of evidence of George Herbert Walker Bush's importation
of cocaine during the Iran-Contra scandal (the "Kerry Committee"
investigated this scandal after Iran-Contra)? Is this similar to Clinton's
involvement with Daddy ("Poppy") Bush's smuggling of tons of
cocaine through Arkansas while Clinton was Governor to fund the Contra
war and make billions in untraceable profits? Is is possible for anyone
to become President who isn't deeply involved in these sorts of scandals?
http://www.oilempire.us/kerry.html

Kerry is going to win, and the Strangelove faction behind Bush and Cheney do not want this to happen.

Much of the elite, but not all, are satisfied with Kerry, who is for
the Bush military budget, Homeland Security, the Peak Oil wars, the draft,
etc. But the extreme crazies aren't as interested in the illusion of legitimacy
while building the police state, they want full
strength fascism.

The Constitution already plans for
electoral postponements
no need for "Homeland Security"
to tamper with the Constitution

It's worth remembering that the Department of Homeland Security is run
by an extreme Republican ideologue with a long track record of opposition
to basic civil liberties. While Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge had
a peaceful protestor of the 2000 Republican Convention (in Philadelphia)
arrested with a one million dollar bail for the crime of talking on his
cell phone on the public street (perhaps the biggest bail ever for a misdemeanor).
Ridge was made head of "Homeland Security" within a few months
of the Air Force shootdown of Flight 93 near
Shanksville, PA on September 11. For more on the danger of the Homeland
Security department, see www.oilempire.us/homeland.html

From: "Noe, Teresa A."
The XX amendment to the constitution clearly defines when the President's
term ends. The constitution also requires elections be held before then.

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT
Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies
§ 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed,
in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November,
in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice
President. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose
of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed
by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a
manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

So why is anybody making an issue of this? We're already covered for
just such a possibility and the New York 9/11 primary is the model for
how to cover it!

Several states are considering cancelling the 2004 Presidential
Primaries under the excuse of "saving money." While it is obvious
who will be the "winner" of the Republican primaries, there
is more difference between Senators Lieberman or Kerry and Representative
Kucinich than between Lieberman or Kerry and Bush. In a parliamentary
democracy, they would not be in the same party. Indeed, given Lieberman's
policies, it could be argued that he is running for election in the wrong
country (he has relatives who are "settlers" on the occupied
West Bank).

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/11/10/a3.nat.primaries.1110.html
November 10, 2003
Cash-strapped states dump primary elections
By Robert Tanner
The Associated Press

Several states have moved to drop their presidential primaries next year,
worried about costs in still-tight financial times and wondering if the
political exercise would serve any purpose.
Some say they can't afford the millions of dollars it costs to put on
an election. Others say the decisions reflect the lopsided nature of modern
primaries: The front-runner gets anointed by the media and campaign donors
after the first few state primaries and the rest of the primaries are
formalities.
The decisions add fuel to the argument that the primary system is in dire
need of repairs. In most states forgoing a primary, party-run caucuses
will be used instead to choose delegates to the national conventions.
``Fewer voters will participate because (caucuses) are more complex,''
said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American
Electorate. State politicians are freezing out average voters, he said,
because caucuses bring ``lower turnout, and more advantage to whoever's
organized.''
Primaries usually don't get turnout much higher than 20 percent of registered
voters, but they're better than caucuses. In Missouri, the 2000 primary
brought 745,000 people to the polls, while the 1996 caucus brought 20,000,
the state Democratic Party said.
So far, Kansas, Colorado and Utah - all with Republican-controlled
legislatures - have canceled their state-run 2004 primaries. Republican
legislatures tried unsuccessfully to drop primaries in Arizona and Missouri,
but Democratic governors either vetoed the primary bill or restored the
funding.Some Democrats complain that cutting primaries hurts
them especially, with their crowded field of candidates. President
Bush has no challenger.
Other Democrats, however, are pushing to get rid of primaries. Maine dropped
its presidential primary for next year, and New Mexico effectively did
- it passed a law allowing parties to hold caucuses, and then Democratic
Gov. Bill Richardson set an early Feb. 3 caucus (June primaries will go
on for other elections).
Washington Gov. Gary Locke, head of the Democratic Governors Association,
is calling a special session to discuss scrapping his state's primary
next year.
``Why waste $7 million of scarce state money?'' Locke said. Democrats
in Washington state are using precinct caucuses in February to allocate
national convention delegates, making the March 2 primary pointless.
Oregon plans to go ahead with its primary on May 18.
Money worries have just exacerbated already existing doubts about the
front-loaded nature of the primaries, officials and experts said.
``It started to snowball,'' said Leslie Reynolds, executive director of
the National Association of Secretaries of State. ``We're spending all
this money, we don't have an impact on the process, and people aren't
coming because they don't feel they have an impact.''
``Clearly, the process is flawed,'' said Massachusetts Secretary of State
William Galvin. ``The country is only now beginning to wake up to the
fact that there's a primary. Active Democrats are only now focusing on
it. Average voters aren't focused at all. And that's not good.''
Gans said the changes aren't all bad. A turn to caucuses strengthens person-to-person
politics, rather than the TV-driven, mass advertising campaigns that mark
big primary days like Super Tuesday, when 11 states vote at once.
Galvin, a Democrat, worries instead that the anti-primary push in GOP-controlled
states is an effort to stop any criticism of Bush from within his party.
``They don't want a president on the ballot when people can come out and
make a protest,'' he said.
But Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee,
said the decisions have been made by the states, not the national party,
and for them cost is the main concern. ``There's no reason to spend the
money when it isn't necessary,'' she said.
In some states where the government has chosen not to hold the primary,
the state Democratic Party has decided to conduct one anyway and bear
the cost itself.
South Carolina's Democrats are struggling to raise an estimated $500,000
for their Feb. 3 contest.
Utah's Democrats also want their voters to have a say.
``We want to show the Utah Legislature they were wrong and the democratic
process is alive in Utah,'' state party Chairman Donald Dunn said.
CANCELING PRIMARIESSeveral states have moved to cancel their presidential primaries
next year.
They include:

Colorado: Abolished 2004 presidential primary to
save $2 million.
Kansas: Canceled scheduled April 6 primary to save $1.75 million, and
because lawmakers believed it would be held too late to have much influence.
Maine: Eliminated primary; both caucuses and primaries were relied on
in the past to choose delegates to national convention.
New Mexico: Allowed parties to hold a February caucus for presidential
nominations. June primary will still be held for local and state elections.
Utah: Scrapped presidential primary after the last one drew only 10 percent
of the electorate. Democrats will hold their own primary on Feb. 24 using
private funds.
Washington: Considering proposal to eliminate the March 2 primary at a
special session in December. Democratic Gov. Gary Locke says primary ``serves
no practical purpose'' because party caucuses will choose delegates.

2004
Presidential Candidates

Issue

George Walker Bush: the bad cop

John Forbes Kerry:
the good cop

Howard Dean: the doctor for the death penalty

Dennis Kucinich:
the peace candidate

Skull and Bones cult

member, 1968
President George Herbert Walker Bush and Senator Prescott Bush were also
members

member, 1966
John Heinz, Senior (father of Teresa Heinz Kerry's first husband) was also
a member

went to Yale University, but was not "tapped" for Skull and
Bones

not a member

war on Iraq

primary responsible official for this war crime, should be impeached and
jailed for this activity

supports continuation of Iraqi occupation with increased troop levels,
but hopes his more suave demeanor can convince Europeans to contribute troops
and money

had tactical disagreements with how it was done, but supports Bush's military
budget

only Presidential candidate who voted against the war and wants to reduce
the military budget for social needs

9/11

primary official responsible for the paralysis of the NORAD Air Force
protection of New York and Washington, it is critical that Bush be removed
from office BEFORE November 2, 2004

Silent about Bush's complicity in 9/11

floated the idea that the Saudis might have warned Bush in advance

supports a genuine investigation and "truth and reconciliation"
commission to learn the truth, talks about "al-Qaeda's role" in
9/11 which implies others were involved

Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act

signed them into law

voted for both of them

a supporter of Homeland Security

voted against both of them

new gas pipeline from north Alaska to lower 48

supports

supports

on record calling for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, only candidate
to mention Peak Oil

immediate increase in fuel efficiency standards

opposes

opposes, wants to wait for 36 mpg cars until 2015, after his terms are
over

worked out a deal with Bush regime to exempt I-289, the Burlington Bypass,
from normal environmental review

wants a stop to all subsidies of fossil fuel

NAFTA treaty and WTO

supports

supports

supports, brought Wal-Mart to Vermont while Governor

opposes, would rescind immediately after Inauguration

genetic frankenfood

supports

supports

supports, as long as it is labeled

opposes strongly

spraying Columbia with herbicides

supports

supports

?

opposes

Enron

good friends with Ken Lay, CEO of Enron

Teresa Heinz Kerry had Ken Lay on the board of directors of her foundation,
supports energy deregulation

opposes

wealth

officially a multi-millionaire, but with three trillion dollars unaccounted
for in federal spending, the true wealth is probably much greater than this

billionaire (Teresa is worth more than $1,000,000,000)

his family is old money Republican from Long Island, NY

his House of Representatives job the best paying of his life, not wealthy

Florida election coup

primary perpetrator and beneficiary

ratified the Florida coup on January 6, 2001, by refusing to support Congressional
Black Caucus objections to the fraudulent Florida electors (one Senator
was needed to permit a Congressional debate)

sadly, did not join Black Caucus objections to Florida Coup, but since
he's not a Senator, it was less relevant than Kerry's silence

Kerry has a history of helping to cover up official scandals, especially his
work on damage limitation of the CIA / cocaine scandal after Iran-Contra. He's
probably already been picked by the powers-that-be to replace cousin George,
since W. wasn't able to get the oil from the Middle East as promised. Why else
would the media suddenly trash the incumbent, although in a relatively limited
way (they won't dare touch the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was not a surprise
attack)?

November 23, 2003
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Scaring Up Votes
By MAUREEN DOWD
New York Times www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/opinion/23DOWD.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=
Republicans have announced their intention: to scare us stupid, hoping
we won't remember that this was the same State of the Union in which Mr. Bush
made a misleading statement about the Iraq-Niger uranium connection, or remark
that the imperial idyll in Iraq has created more terrorists.
Richard Clarke, the former U.S. counterterrorism chief, told Ted Koppel that
Mr. Bush's habit of putting X's through the pictures of arrested or killed Qaeda
managers was very reminiscent of a scene in the movie "The Battle of Algiers,"
in which the French authorities did the same to the Algerian terrorists: "Unfortunately,
after all the known Algerian terrorists were arrested or killed, the French
lost. And that could be the thing that's happening here, that even though we're
getting all the known Al Qaeda leaders, we're breeding new ones. Ones we don't
know about and will be harder to find."

Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton are the only
presidential candidates who are not war mongers.However, Sharpton does not have managerial experience in politics - and
while gives great speeches, is probably less qualified than Kucinich for the
job (and an election is ultimately a job interview, with the voters as boss
- at least in theory).